Welcome to The Rant! Your very own electronic cesspool of naughty, left wing propaganda. MADE IN AMERICA!!!

Saturday, February 12, 2011

Stand up for the Prez

If you've been reading this site with any degree of regularity in the last year you probably have already figured out that I am just a tad disappointed with the performance of President Obama thus far. Twenty-three days past the halfway point of his first term finds the man with a mixed record. He called his autobiography "The Audacity of Hope". During the campaign of 2008, he spoke of change we can believe in. Many of us were hoping for radical change. We didn't get it - or at least, we haven't gotten it yet. I am tempted to believe that for purely expedient political reasons, Barack Obama is saving his best routines for act two. Maybe I'm kidding myself. Maybe not. We shall see what we shall see.

FOR THE RECORD: As disappointed as I may be with the performance of this president to date, I still thank goodness each and every day that John McCain is not sleeping in the Oval Office at this very moment and that Fascist Barbie is not a seventy-two-year-old heart beat away from the presidency. Can you even imagine?

As far as his political horizons are concerned, the president is in an enviable position. A cursory glance at the insane clown posse that passes for "the loyal opposition" these days tells me that defeating the GOP on Election Day 2012 will be as easy as shooting a goldfish bowl with a 12 gauge shotgun. Just have a gander at their front runners: The only one of the lot with an IQ above room temperature is Mitt Romney. A Mormon as Republican standard bearer? That ain't NEVER gonna happen baby! The religious bigots and extremists who have hijacked that disgusting party will see to that.No doubt about it; as of this writing anyway, it looks to me that the prez is going to have a relatively easy time of it during the campaign next year - that is unless he is challenged in the primaries by one of his own. Keep your eyes glued on Evan Bayh of Indiana. I predicted two months into Obama's term that Bayh might very well go for it in 2012. Two years later my suspicions are only heightened. Why do you think he chose not to run for re-election last year? He knows damned well that these days it is much easier to run as "an outsider". One of the things he says he's working on these days is moving the Democratic party more to the "center". I translate that as meaning "more toward the right than it already is". I can't trust the guy as far as I can throw him.

My message today is for the Liberal base of the Democratic party.

Listen, folks, a lot of you engaged in a mass, nationwide hissy fit by staying home on Election Day last - and what the hell did it get you? The House of Representatives is now controlled by half-wits and crazy people. The only reason the Democrats were able to retain the senate is because the Republicans were kind enough to nominate too many certifiable head cases to count (Thank you, Sharon Angle). As I said, Obama will have an easy time of it next time around - but not without your wholehearted support. We have to get to work to make sure that he is re-elected in 2012.

I know what you're thinking and I agree. He has been somewhat of a let down. To be perfectly honest with you, I'm just mild about Barry. Giving in to tax cuts for the plutocracy was beyond idiotic. Did he really believe he would gain any leverage with these assholes by appeasing them? Who the hell knows what he was thinking. His most significant legislative accomplishment - health care reform - is not much to celebrate. The American people will still be at the mercy of the insurance and pharmaceutical industries, and they will continue to die an average of two years earlier than their cousins in Europe. And, most frustrating of all, he seems blind to the futility of continuing to wage the longest war in American history - a war that cannot - and will not - be won. The president would be wise to heed the advice Senator Akin of Vermont gave Lyndon Johnson as Vietnam was immolating his presidency: "Declare victory and get the hell out of there!"

But there are a number of reasons to be hopeful about Barack Obama's second term (I hope). Let's go over some of them.

On February 27, 1951 the Republicans in congress insulted the memory of Franklin D. Roosevelt, the only man in history to be elected to more than two terms. When the 22nd Amendment to the Unites States Constitution was ratified, it insured that no person could ever again be elected to more than two terms as president. This means Obama will be free to more vigorously pursue progressive legislation simply because he won't have to worry about re-election. While no president is ever completely free of the political consequences of the decisions he makes (There's always the damned party to think of) the chief-executive who does not have to worry about the coming election has much less of a burden to carry.

In a second term Obama might very well kick out the jams and become the progressive Superman we all thought he was capable of being. Of course this will only happen if his party takes back both houses of congress. Otherwise all that he will be able to do in his final term will be to keep the right wing tide at bay. That's why it is so important that the base re-energizes itself in the coming year.

Another thing to take into consideration is the man's personal character. For all his flaws it is clear that he is an essentially decent guy with good intentions. The same cannot be said of the contenders for the job. As president, Obama has been bombarded with obstruction, slander - and overt racism - by the "party of Abraham Lincoln". They have been dedicated to the proposition that he fail - utterly and completely. The fact that he has been able to accomplish anything is testament to the man's fortitude. A second term for Barack Obama could be very successful - but that success will not happen if you silly Liberals stay home again on Tuesday, November 6, 2012. Something to ponder.

Then there is the sticky little problem of world opinion, and the esteem in which President Obama is held by the rest of the planet. Do you remember the headline that Britain's Daily Mail ran the day after Dubya was re-elected?

"HOW CAN 59,054,087 PEOPLE BE SO DUMB?"

How indeed? Given the nauseous atmosphere at any Republican gathering nowadays, it's not likely that the world will tip their hats in admiration if any of these jackasses are sent to Washington two years from now. In fact, sending another incurious extremist to the White House will - to put it mildly - complicate international relations.

And finally there are the GOP contenders to consider. Look at them!THEY'RE BRAIN-DAMAGED! Did you happen to check out that silly CPAC convention this week? Extremism in the defense of Librium. Michele Bachmann told the crowd, "And the all -important, must-have of 2012 is this: making Barack Obama a one-term president." - and then she did something I've never seen a public speaker do in my entire life. This imbecile actually pleaded with her audience to give her a standing ovation:

"STAND UP! STAND UP! STAND UP!"

It was all caught on videotape, folks. I'm not making any of this up, I swear. With the exception of Romney - who is the only one of the lot who does not have little birdies flying out of his ears - I can only pray that one of the current crop of idiots gets the nomination, assuring an Obama victory. But that's probably wishful thinking on my part. Would the people who vote in Republican primaries be asinine enough to go with any of these chuckleheads? That all depends on the state of course. While a candidate like Sarah Palin would be a cinch in South Carolina, it's doubtful her act would sell many tickets in Vermont.

They'll probably wind up going with Marc Rubio, the newly elected (and popular) senator from Florida. I can see it now:

"Just like Obama, folks! Rubio came out of nowhere but he's a conservative - AND HE'S WHITE!"

He's also Hispanic - a growing and important demographic. And, like Romney, he seems to have an IQ higher than your average half-eaten box of Milk Duds.

A lot can happen in the twenty-one months between now and the election. We just can't afford to sit around twiddling our thumbs. Barack Obama may not be a Progressive's dream, but like it or not, he's the man many of us have invested our hopes in - and a third party uprising is out of the question. Don't even go there. The GOP is beyond redemption. If that party is ever again given control of the legislative and the executive branch of our government, you can kiss this country goodbye.

Tom Degantomdegan@frontiernet.net

AFTERTHOUGHT:

If the people over at Spell Check had their way, the president's name would be, "Bareback Alabama". Honestly.

Here's a link to Michele Bachmann's nutty speech two days ago at the Conservative Political Action Conference two days ago:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k87YqiPD9Wk

It has to be seen to be believed. The gal is a scream!

For more recent postings on this cesspool of PINKO PROPAGANDA, kindly go to the following link:

I will be a good pleb and vote for the lesser of two evils in 2012, but this all begs the question: What kind of government do we have when one only gets a choice of voting between the Capitalist Oligarchy and the Capitalist Oligarchy Lite? Certainly not the democracy our forefathers imagined.

That is is the best point I have heard expressed in a while. If the Dems don't get their act together - AND PRETTY DAMNED QUICK - a third party is inevitable. They are in danger of going the way of the Whigs. They have forgotten that they are the party of Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt - or at least they used to be. Pity.

Leslie, maybe it's because those "fair-weather Dems" are starting to realize that it essentially doesn't make any difference whether Democrats or Republicans are the majority, or who's in the White House. Either way, corporate power owns our government, which means they own us, We the People.

Until the majority of citizens understand who's really calling the shots, and take action to change it, we'll continue our servitude to international banking and multinational corporate interests. It's as simple as that.

Okay, Mitt may be the only smart Republican out there but I wouldn't trust him. Like many in his party, he seems fond of "say one thing, do something else"

If you haven't already, read Senator Ted Kennedy's autobiography "True Compass", I came out with a bad taste in my mouth about Mitt Romney after that. I admit to sort of trusting him prior to that. If people don't want to read the whole back, just check the index and look up Romney.

Some may change their mind about the mistake of nominating John Kerry in 2004 - poor guy, if just a few Ohio counties had voted the way they said they were going to vote...ah well, that's all water under the bridge to Washington! He's probably one of our few hopes in the senate anyway. Better he's there then in the White House.

And the party of Harry Truman..."To Bess Truman, to Margaret Truman, to Err is Truman..." (Sorry, couldn't reist that little MASH pun.)and the party of Jack, Bobby and Ted...wow, how they are missed.

"killing" mom and Jefferson: I'm not at all thrilled with the direction the "official" Democratic party is taking, but to me it is not just a choice of voting for the lesser of two evils. One side is truly evil - evil to the core - as in Nazi-evil. They scare the shit out of me, frankly. They are paranoid and ignorant, a dangerous combination as we have already witnessed in history. Certainly the financial and corporate elitists - people like the Koch family and the Coors - are to be feared, but it's the really ignorant ones who know no bounds and who will stop at nothing.

This is why the right wins and the left doesn't. They fight for the far right agenda but only a small handful of smaller party warriors derided as naive by the liberal cognoscenti are fighting for the progressive agenda. Get a clue, people. Their agenda gets advanced because they expect something of their pols. Ours doesn't because we don't.

Tom, once more you are right on the money. While Obama has occasionally seemed to disappoint (and what politician hasn't?) I think the biggest mistake his opponents and disappointed liberals can make is to underestimate him. He is much smarter and more calculating than they give him credit for.

Actually I am not too worried about the next two years as Boehner is already having a very difficult time trying to hold the House together and it is not going to get any easier given the wild eyed naiveté of tea party set versus the old white man contingent. Case in point, the GOP freshmen are ready to slash, burn and cut the budget while being totally clueless as to how it works and what the actual ramifications of their proposed cuts would be.

The thing to remember is that dogs can chase cars but they can't drive them.

I think Bill Maher was right when he said, “When it comes to voting, when we only have two choices, you got to grow up and realize there’s a big difference between a disappointing friend and a deadly enemy.”

As a conservative I read your post with interest. Interest because what you say about the "progressives" not voting in 2010 like they did in 2008 is not correct. Is there any evidence that the progressive voter did not vote in 2010? All research I have found shows that the moderates didn't vote the same way as they did in 2008, the progressive base didn't flee, it was the voter to the right of the base which voted different in 2010 than they did in 2008. The question that progressives should be asking themselves is why?

It can't be due to Fox News, cable networks do not draw near the numbers as does broadcast news. Is there a FOX news in the non-cable broadcast world?It cant be due to talk radio, they didn't stop the changes of 2008 election.Print media, since '08 haven't seen a swing from the left there, other than publications dropping in readership numbers there haven't been any changes to the center.

Internet? Maybe that's it. But that is saying something that should scare the wits out of a progressive. Here's why, there is no way to limit competition of the expression of ideas on the internet by government interaction like there is in the other sources I've listed.(At least up to this date there isn't.) Which means if the internet is the reason for the results of the election of 2010, then progressives will lose again in 2012, unless progressives can get government involvement.

Why? It is my belief that in the free market place of ideas, like that found on blogs like yours, liberalism can not compete.Liberalism by it's own definition of needing government to fix the ills of a society, does not do well in the free market place where their is no government intervention to "level the playing field" or to "redistribute the wealth".

(notice, this post was made with out one single name calling statement)

It seems to me most Liberals look at Obama with rose colored glasses. I see him as a Conservative because he wants to cut S.S. and many other social programs. He did create the Deficit Commission didn't he? He helped Monsanto get their GMO alfalfa unrestricted use all over the country. Soon Organic food will be a thing of the past.

Look how he surrounds himself with Corporatist in his cabinet, would a Conservative president be doing things much different than Obama? I think not.

I must refer you to the episode of South Park where the kids are told to vote for a new school mascot; I believe this aired during the 2004 presidential campaign. They were forced to choose between a "Douche-Bag" and a "Turd-Sandwich." One of the kids refused to vote out of spite because the choices were so ridiculously awful, and he was exiled from the community of South Park. Please do not choose to be exiled from your community come November 2, 2012. A "Douche-Bag" is disgusting, but is has its function and place in society, while a "Turd-Sandwich" is completely useless. Obama 2012.

Thank goodness for George Bush and saving Iraq, that is clear now, but with the typical hate this blogger Tom Degan pushes against White Women and Loves 2 Virgins Whacko John Lennon and Murderers like Ted Kennedy, what do you expect.

Let’s see, he was going to change the way Washington worked, He wasn't going to allow lobbyists in his inner circle, he would be more transparent, and bills would be posted online for 47-72 hours before they were voted on by Congress.

I don't hold Obama accountable for not living up to those promises however I blame him for being so naive to think he could, either that or he just flat out lied.

Obama is no different than any other politician who seems to mean well when they get into office but then becomes overcome with the power and ego.

Let’s face it, Washington is broke and it's both parties fault. No one party is better than the other. The Liberals and Progressives that can only blame Repubs or those far right Conservatives that can only blame the Dems are the delusional ones

Mary, although I concur that a douche-bag has its function and place in society, it's still a useless apparatus to me, and moreover, it's the inappropriate tool for formulating social, economic, and international policy (unless it's a thorough internal cleansing you're after).

By the way, I also agree that a turd-sandwich is completely useless, except, of course, to those apologists who continue to idolize Ronald Reagan, or look the other way when confronted with Dubya's transgressions.

TOM DEG SH-T, LOSER SCUM BAG POSTS HIS BLOG AROUND TO PUKE HIS HATE so he's a friggin' predator, lowest of the low, posting his stuff so people have to read his hate, I hope someone abuses his c-nt cousin the way tom scumbag devil verbally abuses women and thinks he is hot sh-t,

Just like that video shows, liberals sees blacks and women as pawns,

Zero Bama voted to let live baby dies, figure this bum devil would think "we gotta stand by him" since he's such a hater.

Douchebag stalker modus operandi is just stalking for him, let's press charges against these abusive stalkers.

Douche bag liberals call the tea party racists like km though clearly this is a grass roots movement the likes that crap liberals could never get going.

Devil posts his crap for people to look at and assault with his verbal hate, well, let's tell sh-t for brains degan the same thing.

What was Tbrowns saying?? tom devil is good not to remove some posts? Tom Devil is the one that posts for people to read his blog around, narcissist like others and then you have to read this hate by the baby killing liberals.

TNLIB: You and Tom Deg Sh-t have a lot less, since Deg Sh=t makes it so people have to read his hateful crap, maybe even his C-NT piano waste of oxygen will read it, let's hope the verbal abuse losers like you KM, and Tom Dog Sh-t is hurled at her.

Anonymous, I know I've accused people, such as yourself, of being lurking, shadowy, slithering trolls on this blog. For lack of a better reason, it's because you, and those who are like you, are incapable of rational thought and insight. You, and those who "think" like you, frame your opinions and responses according to the latest innuendo and propaganda that spews from Fox News each day. Your education, whether formally or self-taught, is developmentally at a child's level, and children shouldn't frequent blogs where critical thinking skills and analysis are required for understanding. It only adds to your frustration and agitation.

Furthermore, nobody forces you to read this blog. You're free to leave at any time. Would you be so kind as to make that time now?

"TNLIB: You and Tom Deg Sh-t have a lot less, since Deg Sh=t makes it so people have to read his hateful crap, maybe even his C-NT piano waste of oxygen will read it, let's hope the verbal abuse losers like you KM, and Tom Dog Sh-t is hurled at her."

Anonymous' posts remind me of a quote from "Blazing Saddles':"Now who can argue with that? I think we're all in debt to Gabby Johnson for stating what needed to be said. I am particularly glad that these lovely children are here today to hear that speech. Not only was it authentic frontier gibberish, it expressed the courage little seen in this day and age."

No arguments from me on the main gist of your piece, Tom. Excellent as always.

Two things Hoosier-related that I'll dispute, though. I don't think Evan is going to run. Not in 2012, not against Obama. He campaigned for Obama, Obama campaigned for him and even considered him for VP, and I think he genuinely wants to get out of politics for a while. It's possible that he might return in 2016, but he won't run against his political friend in 2012. Evan always gets lots of play here, and all indications are that he will sit this one out.

Second: Mitch Daniels is no dummy. I don't like everything he's done here, but he's not stupid. He's getting a lot of press for his C-PAC speech, in which he had some pretty harsh words concerning the budget, as well as for the audience. However, the base will not rally behind Daniels, because of his desire to focus on the fiscal rather than the social. That's right...he's called for a truce on social issue debates, and the teabaggers and fundies in the base will never go for that. Despite all of their talk that they want less spending and less government, they're perfectly happy in their hypocrisy in wanting to push through anti-abortion legislation and have the government dictate who may NOT get married. So much for less government involvement!

Degan, you and many on the left are too dogmatic towards what you think Obama was/is supposed to do in office for your own good-that's why you (and only you and others like you) are disappointed with Obama. Here's the real truth about what good Obama's done that isn't trapped by narrow ideology about what was supposed to happen, but what realistically did happen:

What The "Do Nothing" Obama Has Accomplished That We Choose To Ignore Or Fail To Acknowledge

Normally, I wouldn't respond to someone "Anonymous" but the remark has me guessing - Ted Kennedy - murderer? OK - guilty of being in the wrong place at the wrong time AND admitting to the guilt that he lived with the rest of his life in the death of Mary Jo Kopechne.

John Lennon - a wacko (I wish I could figure out how to do italics in here but...whatever)...sorry, I see red when I read that. A wacko killed him...John may have been a little eccentric, yes, but a wacko, I don't think so. Imagining a better world and trying to make it that way would NEVER make anyone a wacko.

If Senator Ted was still alive and a dreaded disease like cancer hadn't killed him, I would be afraid for his life right now. Of course, he received death threats on a regular basis and considering what happened to his brothers, he bravely forged ahead with his ideals and high regard for the people of this country helping to change it for the better.

Finally, I have never read anything in Tom's blog that I as a white woman would take as an insult or an affront of any kind. I believe he has always shown the utmost respect for women of any race, creed or what have you. Moreso then many men I have known.

The other two men listed above did the same as well as the president whether we're disappointed in somethings he hasn't accomplished or not.

That's what real women call real men. Okay?

Signed - a somewhat angry woman who knows how to think, read and form her own opinions. Thank you very much!

“The statesman can only wait and listen until he hears the footsteps of God resounding through events; then he must jump up and grasp the hem of His coat, that is all.” Thus Otto von Bismarck, the great Prussian statesman who united Germany and thereby reshaped Europe’s balance of power nearly a century and a half ago.

Last week, for the second time in his presidency, Barack Obama heard those footsteps, jumped up to grasp a historic opportunity … and missed it completely.

In each case, the president faced stark alternatives. He could try to catch the wave, Bismarck style, by lending his support to the youthful revolutionaries and trying to ride it in a direction advantageous to American interests. Or he could do nothing and let the forces of reaction prevail. In the case of Iran, he did nothing, and the thugs of the Islamic Republic ruthlessly crushed the demonstrations. This time around, in Egypt, it was worse. He did both—some days exhorting Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak to leave, other days drawing back and recommending an “orderly transition.”

The result has been a foreign-policy debacle. The president has alienated everybody: not only Mubarak’s cronies in the military, but also the youthful crowds in the streets of Cairo. Whoever ultimately wins, Obama loses. And the alienation doesn’t end there. America’s two closest friends in the region—Israel and Saudi Arabia—are both disgusted. The Saudis, who dread all manifestations of revolution, are appalled at Washington’s failure to resolutely prop up Mubarak. The Israelis, meanwhile, are dismayed by the administration’s apparent cluelessness.

So you want me to vote for the lesser of two evils in the dim hope that Obama will pull and FDR because he will not be facing re-election? I could do that and I am sure I will be disappointed. Then again if I vote for the Green Party candidate I will end up helping the Tea Party candidate win. Quite a bind. But it seems the difference between the two evils is becoming smaller all the time so that the lesser is not all that lesser. What we need a liberal tea party and an LPAC. -----------------------------------------

"The tea party leadership and message machine is funded by the Koch family, controlled by Dick Armey and amplified by Rupert Murdoch."

I simply cannot understand why Boltok and Anonymous manage to insert the subject of abortion into their comments on your posts, Tom. That is not the topic we are discussing. Stay on topic or shut up, fellas.

Jefferson's Guardian speaks for me when he criticizes Anonymous for lack of critical thinking. Anonymous is obviously incapable of thinking PERIOD. I feel like vomiting when I read his diatribes filled with cheap slurs and horrible grammar. No wonder he is too ashamed to leave his name. I do wish he would pick up his foul mouthed garbage and leave since reading Tom's rants leaves him so full of anger. It would be better for his blood pressure. (And mine.)

Boltok, your comments are so inane that I wish you would make them on your own blog ( I assume you have one) and spare Tom's followers from further eyestrain trying to make sense of what you write.

If you can't make rational rebuttals with correct spelling and grammar and links to prove or disprove your assertions, I would encourage everyone to shun you.

Okay...back to the President...the current one! Let's give the man a little breathing room. The mid-term elections are over with.

The "other" party now controls the congress and now we wait and see if anything on either side of the aisle can get accomplished. I think it really should be said, who can pay off the huge amounts they own their wealthy campaign contributors best. Big Oil, Big Health Insurance company or Big Auto Insurance company...

Wonder what happened to those nice little gas stations where I could get my oil checked, a mechanic to check some small detail on my car or even help pumping the gas if needed. HAHAHA...teenagers who have just learned to drive would be astounded that only 20 to 30 years ago, you could actually do that at a gas station anywhere in the US! And for maybe $1.25 per gallon.

Jefferson's Guardian has a great point about who is really calling the shots - the big corporations, okay?

Auto Insurance costs more then it is worth but it's illegal NOT to have it. It helps to have it when you need but...then they raise the rates. All while making sure that the safety regulations passed in Washington aren't TOO "safe" so they can continue to make more money and pay out less.

The worst business right now has to be the whole telephone/cable/internet business. If I'm a new customer I can pay 80 bucks a month - WOW! If I'm loyal and stay with them for a year or two...I pay 120 bucks a month - where is the sense in that? When I was a kid, you shopped at the same place, the butcher, baker, or whoever would give your parents a discount for being LOYAL customers. Ahh, the good old days...

Enough about big business now - I have a question??

When did the war in Iraq become a conflict? Was this renamed by the same people that call the war in Korea a "Police Action"? (Police action...that's what the police do when something needs to be done...right? - forgive my Carlin-esque thinking here!) Who is going to be the one to tell the wives, husbands, mothers and fathers of the fallen of that "conflict" that their spouse/child wasn't killed in a war zone...no, it was just a little "conflict."

I think we should have a third party and maybe a fourth one too; both parties just seem have corporate interests at heart these days, (well one party does, and one keeps compromising) and there is just a choice between the evil of two lessers, or what not, but we never have enough time to get enough people behind a good and viable one. So much of middle america is brainwashed into thinking that conservatism benefits them, and so much of the academic and science community is liberally biased. It seems like it would be counter productive to form a third party, because we would just take votes away form the democratic party and cause the republican candidate to win or vice versa, as has happened in the past. Somethings gotta give. Bottom-line. A two party system opened the door for this corporatocracy to start forming. Oh but I will vote, and I will always make sure my vote will count. Maybe not a new third party; maybe a certain party needs to be replaced with a new less compromising party. Or maybe the damn Democrats should just stop compromising so damn much. I don't have the answers.

Tom: I don't always, but most of the time, agree with you but I LOVE your blog. I just have a hard time reading all the ignorant and vitriolic comments from the right, especially since every single one of them BUTCHERS THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE. Maybe their time would be better spent taking some remedial classes in history and English.

"Term limits mean you have to get rid of the good ones. Better to vote the bad ones out."

Congress has wrecked this country by politicians making a career out what should have been a temporary job as envisioned by the Founders of this country. They act in their own self-interest rather than that of the country.

The people elected are spending more and more time and money just to get themselves re-elected.

We need term limits to get rid of the likes of Nancy (lets pass the bill to find out what's in it)Pelosi and Harry Reed.

Browns44"Is there any evidence that the progressive voter did not vote in 2010?"The young vote dropped, the elderly vote increased, and the "undecides" blame whoever's [nominally] in power for the state of the economy. The kids these days skew Democrat (when they can be bothered to vote), while the elderly are convinced that Obama is going to kill them. The young don't turnout to midterms as much as primaries (and the Obama election, even then, was an abnormally large turnout...one that actually expected hope and/or change. What they got was a guy who didn't like to fight, who "looked forward, not backward" even when a bunch of backward needed to go to jail, who couldn't manage to close Gitmo, and who continued to follow and/or expand the worst excesses of Executive Power. They also got a Party that's Republican Lite, with the added demoralizer of them being unwilling to fight. I mean, if they can't not extend the "temporary" tax cuts for the top 2%, defend Social Security better than the Party who up until now has consistently tried to break it, and the like, what are they there for?).

"It can't be due to Fox News, cable networks do not draw near the numbers as does broadcast news. Is there a FOX news in the non-cable broadcast world?"There doesn't have to be. The MSM jumps right in, with a combination with an unwillingness to "take sides" (confusing attempting to be objective and not calling a lie a lie with "being partisan") and poor to no research, and does their work for them (remember ACORN?). The Right is far better at email lists (I got stuck on one for a while after signing up to townhall.com to leave a comment. All I can say are "Wow" and "These things are trivially easy to research and debunk") than the Left, and far less moral at their contents. Who knew that buying grandma a computer for Christmas could have such consequences? The popularity of the Right's sites on the nets greatly exceeds that of the Left.

"Why? It is my belief that in the free market place of ideas, like that found on blogs like yours, liberalism can not compete."Fear is a potent motivator. Half of all Republicans think Obama wasn't born in the US. Another quarter aren't sure (It's even infected the Dems). Oh, and he's a commie. And a Muslim. And an atheist. And a scary black Christian. And he wants to kill your grandmother. And he's got the most extreme positions on abortion ever. Etc. Fear is all the GOP has left, and since the Dems are tempermentally unwilling to fight and generally poor at it when they try, they're always stuck on the defensive. A defense with no offense is no defense at all. Add in how few actual liberals there are in Congress, and it means that they're unable even to fight for GOP positions from fifteen years ago. Also, the bad part about the "free market place of ideas" is that there's precious little quality control.

"Liberalism by it's own definition of needing government to fix the ills of a society, does not do well in the free market place where their is no government intervention to 'level the playing field' or to 'redistribute the wealth'."At this point the only goal of liberalism is to not screw people over any more than they already are. That's how far the goalposts have shifted.

James"It seems to me most Liberals look at Obama with rose colored glasses."You must be new here.

Avram Mirsky"Actually, it wouldn't surprise me a tad if the Rethugs instead rally around ... (are you ready) ... Jeb Bush in 2012."I'm sure they'll manage to rally against their "other" by then, but as it stands the Romney-Huckabee split is delicious.

Anonymous"No one party is better than the other."One party is better than the other. If not by as much as we'd like. One party is generally well-meaning but willfully weak, while the other is generally malevolent and willfully ignorant.

boltok"Where else, other that maybe the Middle East, could a many with large ears, a large mouth and diminutive brain who feels entitled to others people's earnings become leader."Ah, yes. Halliburton/KBR pulling in $30,000,000,000 from the sweet State teat in no-bid, cost-plus, negligible oversight contracts in the last decade is fine, but helping to retrain John Q Public after his job goes away is not.Distributing down is class warfare, while distributing up shut up that's why.

"That's some family you idiots adore.""We" include the Kennedy's faults in our memory of them. They aren't "our" Reagan.

Darlene"I do wish he would pick up his foul mouthed garbage and leave since reading Tom's rants leaves him so full of anger."I'd be happy if he could get my name right.

Laneman"Tom, Ralph Nader once said the problem with choosing the lesser of two evils is that you are still choosing evil."And in 2000 every vote for Nader was a vote for Dubya. In a two party system splitting the vote only helps the non-split party. And too few are willing to start and build up a genuine third party district by district, state by state up to big party status.

TeaPartyTim"Presidential term limits were enacted because of FDR to prevent another Dictator like him from ever holding office as long as he did."Obviously. FDR was history's greatest monster....And while you're here, where was the Tea Party from 2001-2008? Where were the calls for "personal responsibility" when TARP passed? Where were the calls for small government as it got bigger and bigger? Where were the calls for "fiscal responsibility" when Dubya called for tax cuts, twice, to "pay" for two wars? Where was the love of the Constitution after the Patriot Act passed? Where was the outrage over spending the future now for two unfunded wars and one unfunded Medicare-D? Where were the protests over government over-reach when No Child Left Behind was proposed?

Anonymous"We need term limits to get rid of the likes of Nancy (lets pass the bill to find out what's in it)Pelosi and Harry Reed."I know, right? I'm all "Hey, Reid and Pelosi have been there four whole years longer than Boehner! That, like, forever! And that's way longer than Hatch, who has only been their since 1977! Look at how non-partisan I am! Woo!"

"The Los Angeles Unified School District spends more than $12,000 per child and has a 40% graduation rate. Los Angeles Charter schools spend $6,500 per child and have an 80% graduation rate."Even granting that some public school districts are crap, on that last part {citation needed}. You'll probably be surprised to discover that one or both of the following are true:1. The charter schools get to pick their students (while public schools do not), and/or2. They're using different metrics (like charter schools not counting kids that quit).

Education - Detroit - Heritage Foundation:In many cities, spending per student exceeds $10,000 per year, yet graduation rates are below 50 percent. For example, in Detroit, per-student spending is approximately $11,100 per year, yet only 25 percent of Detroit's students are graduating from high school according to a recent estimate.[21] In these communities and across the country, policymakers should focus on reforming policies and resource allocation to improve student achievement.___

The fuctional illiteracy rate in Detroit is 47%.

You could create and pay for private educations for less.___MOReagan and his family, to my knowledge never murdered or raped anyone. You are correct. They are not Kennedys.

BTW: What does Obama's large ears, large mouth and diminutive brain have to do with Halliburton. Did Halliburton construct them?

One thing I like about you MO, is when your absent for a while you come back with volume.

You posted this comment and then you deleted it. You shouldn't have. It's a damned good comment and very true. Allow me, please, to re post it:

His spread the word, attended the rallies and drew whatever they could from their meager paychecks to support the man who promised change and inspired hope. They did everything a candidate could ask of his supporters and more. And what have they gotten in return? A bigger war in Afghanistan, a renewal of the Patriot Act, a porno-scanning system at the airports, more blank checks for Wall Street, and a lot of empty posturing about Guantanamo.

And when their pay and pensions and their jobs were on the line, Obama was no where to be found.

I respectfully must disagree with you on this point. Whom are the Republicans going to nominate to run against him? every single one of their most visible candidates are unelectable - except one: Mitt Romney.

Here's the problem: The religious bigots who long ago hijacked "the party of Abraham Lincoln" will ever - ever nominate a Mormon. Rham Emanuel will be made chairman of the American NAzi party before that ever happens.